Fritz Wuehler
"Lee said that the motorist who backed out of the driveway -- whom Lee declined to identify -- probably was at fault, but that the collision was 'just an accident' and no citations were issued."
ARGH. I would have thought that a Governor would have more responsibility. By not pressing charges, he is condoning the behaviour of the SUV which raced out into oncoming traffic without looking.
Apparently, anyway. Either it was going damn fast, or Arnie was not paying attention. Either way, legally the SUV is at fault for not yielding to traffic already in the roadway.
So, why do you disagree with people like safespeed.org.uk, who explicitly say "You should drive at a speed where you are able to stop in time for hazards" ? People like you say "Oh no, that isn't good enough, you should drive at the speed limit".
Here we have a perfect example. Arnie was driving at the speed limit and still had a crash, and would not have crashed if he had been following the safe speed principle. So your argument is bunk.
I don't think anyone here advocates driving in a style such that you can't avoid roadside hazards.
I don't understand why those cars are not heavily penalized for not yielding to the traffic already in the road.
What evidence do you have for that buttertion? You've just made it up, using "common sense". But common sense is not always right, otherwise we would not have any need for scientists.
More rationalizations of your own position.
So why don't you drive at 10mph everywhere? Please answer this question instead of ignoring it because you don't have a good answer.
Motorcycle accidents and car accidents have a lot of points of difference. Not being a motorcyclist, I wouldn't like to comment much further on what is and isn't safe behaviour from them.
